Brits Identify “Top US News Anchor”

posted at 10:12 am on April 26, 2011 by Jazz Shaw

In what should have been a throw-away puff piece in the Guardian, Hadley Freeman inadvertently stirs up a pair of minor tempests for teapots. (And for once it’s a story from across the pond that has nothing to do with the royal wedding.) The first issue pops up in the article tag line as well as the lede graph.

Rachel Maddow: ‘I’m definitely not an autocutie’

The top US news anchor on why she prefers jokes to anger and why she is proud to be gay

It’s 10.05pm on a rainy Tuesday night in the MSNBC studio in the now famous New York address, 30 Rock, and Rachel Maddow – one of the highest profile news anchors in America and certainly one of the most popular with liberal viewers – has just finished another edition of her nightly eponymous prime-time show.

Really? That comment raised more than a few eyebrows on this side of the Atlantic to be sure. Not to take anything away from Maddow or her fans, but if I recall correctly, she wasn’t even the highest rated anchor at MSNBC until Olberman left. That’s not to say that she and her network haven’t been doing fairly well in the ratings war. But as of the latest count, MSNBC came in second over the whole day to Fox, 1.002 million to 426K, a better than 2:1 margin. In her own time slot, Maddow comes on a bit stronger, placing second with 959K to Hannity’s 1.4 million. And those numbers don’t even fold in the network news offerings.

So how does the Guardian arrive at this conclusion? By comparing her to her CNN counterpart.

What it translates into is ratings. In the first quarter of this year, Maddow’s ratings were 26% higher than CNN’s talkshow in the same timeslot (1,065,000 to 848,000), which, incidentally, is hosted by Piers Morgan.

That’s curiously different than the TV By the Numbers tally, which shows Morgan near the bottom of the field, losing out not only to her and Hannity, but trailing “The Apprentice” on CNBC and barely edging out Dr. Drew on CNN Headline News.

The other portion of the article causing a stir was this strangely out of place comment regarding sexual orientation.

Maddow is one of the very few gay news anchors in America – well, one of the very few openly gay news anchors. Does she feel frustration towards an equally well-known news presenter who is widely assumed to be gay but has never come out? For the first time, Maddow pauses: “I’m sure other people in the business have considered reasons why they’re doing what they’re doing, but I do think that if you’re gay you have a responsibility to come out,” she says carefully.

Well that immediately set tongues to wagging, with speculation that she was talking about CNN’s Anderson Cooper. (The number two guess was apparently Shepard Smith at Fox.) But in Maddow’s defense, it should be made clear that she never mentions Cooper (or anyone else) by name, as she points out at her own blog.

Media-about-media today notwithstanding, I did not in my interview with The Guardian say anything about or to Mr. Cooper, nor would I. Although criticism of Mr. Cooper was intimated by The Guardian and picked up everywhere — I did not make that criticism in the interview, nor did I imply it, nor is it what I believe.

For the record, I do not know, nor do I care if Anderson Cooper is gay. I take Maddow at her word that she is, but again… I really don’t care. I think the more important point is that none of them are in this business for the purpose of “being gay” or promoting anything to do specifically with gays. Your job is to deliver the news. (And, in the case of these prime time shows, opinions as well.) Also to attract enough of an audience to make your continued appearance profitable to your employers. We have enough identity warfare in politics, thank you. We don’t need it in the news room as well.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Then again, I’m not someone who is having a pointless debate on the internet about the Bible.

Abby Adams on April 26, 2011 at 2:04 PM

Thanks for chiming in, we were having a lively debate, harming no one, digging a few thing out that are important to a few of us…and you pop in to try to rustle the posting.
But go ahead, stand on the sidelines and whine about not being included…

Soooo…if there are no acts, than there is no “fruit” (no pun intended).
Now you are finally getting it…it is the act that we judge.

I’ve never disagreed with that simple premise. It’s where you go beyond that and say that the homosexual lifestyle can’t be judged. So then you agree that a professing homosexual is himself a witness to his own sin and therefore guilty. If not than you are saying more than your sentence above.

It is faith without works idea….you can say you are faithful all you want, but without some act that can never be proven.

I’ll make a deal with you. Don’t ask me any more hard questions or hold me to the ridiculous statements I make or I will take my doll and go home Yes or no? fossten on April 26, 2011 at 2:06 PM

Um, no.

There were six Greek testaments known to man in 1611. Portions of the KJV do not appear even in them, let alone subsequently found texts.

So although the KJV is my favorite for aesthetic reasons, there are better translations. It’s just odd that you would favor a version based on a text A.) edited by a Roman Catholic humanist B.) based on extremely limited and problematic Greek texts.

By the way, if you want to continue the discussion, let up on the snark, mkay?

fossten on April 26, 2011 at 2:11 PM

So you can put words in my post, misquote me, and no problem no apology, but I can’t “snark”?
Please, your faux indignation is not accepted.
Certainly men determined that other men made mistakes…the point being, and you keep overlooking it, is that where man is involved, mistakes happen, errors happen. Now we can go back and correct those errors.
Something written in the 1600’s could be wrong, and with new abilities and information we can correct that…now if you don’t want to accept Strong’s Concordance as a definitive (up to this date) reference, that is your option. Until it is proven to be corrected, I will use Strong’s…
word of the day don’t forget is “discernment”…

You challenged me on Westcott and Horte, and I supplied you with evidence. You then moved on to the ‘bottle’ question, which I answered despite your attempts to dismiss and move the goalposts, as well as ad hominem. I answered your query about my preferred text despite your failure to offer your own. Then you snarkily moved on to the unicorn question. Now you’re deliberately misquoting me in an effort to belittle me – somebody you don’t even know, but who is a fellow Christian.

It’s clear to me that you aren’t interested in a discussion, but only in ridicule. I would be wasting my time discussing this any further with you.

What is odd is that there is no real substantive difference between most of the versions…they are all better than what was available in the 1400’s…which was none to the common man.
Luther first bible translation was full of errors, but it brought God’s word to the common man for the first time in all history. It’s worth is greater perhaps than the most accurate interpretation prior to that…since prior it was in the hands of the “elite” who only allowed what they wanted to be taught.
Jefferson’s was obviously one man’s beliefs…
Discernment….

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.“142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

So you can put words in my post, misquote me, and no problem no apology, but I can’t “snark”?
Please, your faux indignation is not accepted.
Certainly men determined that other men made mistakes…the point being, and you keep overlooking it, is that where man is involved, mistakes happen, errors happen. Now we can go back and correct those errors.
Something written in the 1600′s could be wrong, and with new abilities and information we can correct that…now if you don’t want to accept Strong’s Concordance as a definitive (up to this date) reference, that is your option. Until it is proven to be corrected, I will use Strong’s…
word of the day don’t forget is “discernment”…

right2bright on April 26, 2011 at 2:19 PM

Actually, the word is ‘faith’ – but you go ahead and put your trust in the very men that you say we shouldn’t trust. Let me know how that works out.

say that the homosexual lifestyle can’t be judged. So then you agree that a professing homosexual is himself a witness to his own sin and therefore guilty. If not than you are saying more than your sentence above.

It is faith without works idea….you can say you are faithful all you want, but without some act that can never be proven.

right2bright on April 26, 2011 at 2:00 PM

Sure but faith doesn’t need to be demonstrated to God but to man.

shick on April 26, 2011 at 2:13 PM

Okay, let’s back up…words mean something…I never stated the homosexual lifestyle is acceptable, like fossteen I have to admonish you for putting words into my posts…quite the opposite, when you move into the words “lifestyle” I have to assume sex (please don’t pretend the lifestyle means anything but the totality). I stated clearly that the bible has a problem with the act, but doesn’t condemn man loving man. Just what the bible does or does not state.
And no, I do think we have to demonstrate to God our faith…I disagree with you on that statement. That is one of the objects of my prayer life, is giving my life to God to show repentance and contrition to him. Yes he knows what is in my heart, but I must confess it and confirm it with acts.
We disagree on that point…

Okay, let’s back up…words mean something…I never stated the homosexual lifestyle is acceptable, like fossteen I have to admonish you for putting words into my posts…

I didn’t put words in your posts but was summing up what I saw from them. Now I have to reread 4 pages of comments to see if I was truly misunderstanding you from the beginning.
Perhaps my ears had my fingers in them, but I’ll check.

quite the opposite, when you move into the words “lifestyle” I have to assume sex (please don’t pretend the lifestyle means anything but the totality).

I never would pretend that. I was implying that.

I stated clearly that the bible has a problem with the act,

I missed that entirely. My apologies.

but doesn’t condemn man loving man. Just what the bible does or does not state.

And no, I do think we have to demonstrate to God our faith…I disagree with you on that statement. That is one of the objects of my prayer life, is giving my life to God to show repentance and contrition to him. Yes he knows what is in my heart, but I must confess it and confirm it with acts.
We disagree on that point…

right2bright on April 26, 2011 at 2:32 PM

I was thinking of the thief on the cross. I agree again with you here.

I really am surprised by what you said in this post. Fortunately for you, I have a bad memory and am easily gullible. That’s why I’ll have to reread your comments.

Thanks, it is always a minor point that emotionally people have a knee jerk reaction.
The bible doesn’t have much reference on having homosexual tendencies…I think that is purposeful. But is very clear about the acts and the “lifestyle”.
Lusting is a sin, but we all lust at one time or another, but the acting on that lust is what separates us from animals.
Just because some one is attracted to the same sex, doesn’t mean that they have to act on it…no more than if I was attracted to beautiful woman, I am married so I don’t “act” on it (fantasy is that the beautiful woman would return the same).
Their lot in life may be to be celibate…
God explicitly states that we are all sinners, but the culmination of that sin is what we judge others on. He will determine what our real sin was.
Everyone deserves to be loved, and to love…but not everyone deserves unbridled sex with whomever they want.
That is what the marriage act is all about…if they get that passed, then they can say it is “sanctioned” and some church will sanction it and than it becomes “normal”.
It is explicit, sex between unmarried couples is wrong…no doubt.
But love between two people is not wrong…no doubt.

“I’m sure other people in the business have considered reasons why they’re doing what they’re doing, but I do think that if you’re gay you have a responsibility to come out,” she says carefully.

Wow. Just wow. Even as a straight person, I know that coming out is a very personal and oftentimes traumatic decision, and for anyone (especially someone that likes to speak for the “gay community”) to say that gays have a “responsibility” to come out is not only wrong-headed, it’s irresponsible.

It’s called free thinking…let the post flow.
Meanwhile…Maddow is no “anchor”, she is a liberal comedian, just a little less arrogant than Mahr, but about the same myopic intellect.
I say have Tammy Bruce take her on, and see who can kick who’s @ss in the ratings…I put my money on Tammy Bruce.
Fox, you want to stop Maddow, hire Tammy Bruce…

Wow. Just wow. Even as a straight person, I know that coming out is a very personal and oftentimes traumatic decision, and for anyone (especially someone that likes to speak for the “gay community”) to say that gays have a “responsibility” to come out is not only wrong-headed, it’s irresponsible.

“I’m sure other people in the business have considered reasons why they’re doing what they’re doing, but I do think that if you’re gay you have a responsibility to come out,” she says carefully.

When people talk about “dieing with laughter”, or their head exploding, they’re just talking figuratively, right?

I hope so. I have some friends that are left-leaning, who will sometimes characterize the left as supporting equal rights for gays. I want to be around my friends, but I’d also like to live a long and happy life.

Hadley Freeman – is he from the country with the oh-so-very-smart strategy of recruiting radical immigrants, and then putting them on the public dole so they can recruit terrorists while the whole nation watches a wedding?

first off, the Guardian is the worst leftist newspaper in the UK, so why are you surprised…people who read the Guardian in the UK are closer to our definition of ‘commies’ than that of the US socialist left…I used to live there for 8 years and seriously the only readable English newspaper is The Telegraph… the rest if just leftist mouthpieces…yeah, true, that more Brits than Americans lean left, but that’s mainly coz of the decades of entitlements and welfare that changed the fabric of their society…

Rick Maddow is a FRAUD. Nice pic of his female doppelganger on the thread-teaser. Too bad he only looks like that when his show is on. Why can’t he be himself if he’s such a footloose and fancy free Libral?

Unlike a previous post-er, I do NOT respect this fraud more than I do Hannity (who sadly IS a sockpuppet…but give me Sean anyday over Rick Maddow!). And even though I suspect said post-er IS a disconcerted Liberal, like a broken clock he/she is right about the ad hominem attacks (Cons on Cons) here on HA. One of the reasons I never come here anymore.

Isn’t it interesting that in a country where the people on television who read the news are referred to as “news readers”, a perfect example of someone who enthusiastically reads leftist morals between the lines would be selected as “Top US News Anchor”?

I always thought that the title “reader” showed a certain healthy skepticism from the subjects.